But do any of those people say that he demonstrated any signs of recovering from a stroke when they spoke to him?

Well, as reported in Inside Story (as I have already posted), "Harold Bough, who had first contacted him back in April [1993], had seen a dramatic change, as he reported in the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993. Only forty-one, Barrett had aged visibly over the last few months and now walked with a stick..."

A friend of mine had a stroke a few years back. I met him not too long after the event and wouldn't have been able to tell.

I actually consider it an advantage her who did be in agreement with a highly respected professor of criminology. And whilst accepting that everyone's entitled to their own view, I personally don't agree with the current trend towards anti-intellectualism, as exemplified by those who all to easily dismiss the opinion of experts, such as criminologists and forensic scientists, in favour of their own laypersons opinion.

I don't know how many times I need to spell this out: I believe The Diary to be a modern hoax. I dont think it was authored by Maybrick. I don't think it was discovered at Battlecrease.

I'm fully aware of your stance regarding who did, or rather who did not author the Diary, I'm not questioning that belief. With regard to your alliance with Doctor Canter in believing that the Diary is an accomplished work of literature, I can only say you are both talking out of your posterior's. By the way, wasn't Doctor Canter of the belief that the Diary, considering it's content, was the work of a genuine sociapath? In other words he wasn't actually commenting on the literal competance of the work, rather the state of mind if the author

By the way, you've answered my post, I hope you answer the other poster's who have took part in this exchange

I'm fully aware of your stance regarding who did, or rather who did not author the Diary, I'm not questioning that belief. With regard to your alliance with Doctor Canter in believing that the Diary is an accomplished work of literature, I can only say you are both talking out of your posterior's. By the way, wasn't Doctor Canter of the belief that the Diary, considering it's content, was the work of a genuine sociapath? In other words he wasn't actually commenting on the literal competance of the work, rather the state of mind if the author

By the way, you've answered my post, I hope you answer the other poster's who have took part in this exchange

Well, no doubt you regard your own opinion to be far superior to that of Professor Canter. Perhaps like Pierre you also have numerous degrees. And perhaps, like him, you are far too modest about your achievements to refer me to any relevant books or peer-reviewed articles that you've written on a relevant subject.

By the way, you made a grammatical error by using an apostrophe after the word "posterior" An apostrophe should not be used to indicate a plural, only possession or a missing word.

But do any of those people say that he demonstrated any signs of recovering from a stroke when they spoke to him?

I'm not even sure they were aware he had had a stroke, I didn't till the full transcript a couple of weeks ago...so we have all these people judging him "as is"...they formed their opinion of his competency based after a brain injury, even if you could judge someones literacy competency on looks and demeanour alone, surely that has to be judged before a stroke?

As far as I'm concerned all the crap concerning the diary from Mike and others plus the fact Mike procured a booklet from the period. Plus Mike's proven track record of lying. The fact Mike was a published journalist All points to Mike having fabricated the diary. All those who claim Mike did not write the Diary can come up with is the highly dubious inference that he was too stupid to write the Diary.

Well, no doubt you regard your own opinion to be far superior to that of Professor Canter. Perhaps like Pierre you also have numerous degrees. And perhaps, like him, you are far too modest about your achievements to refer me to any relevant books or peer-reviewed articles that you've written on a relevant subject.

haha, still suffering from that little delusion I see, I'm sending you a pm on that score.

However, I''m sure the individuals who believed the Hitler, and Mussolini diaries to be genuine were only too keen to sing the praises of the respective "experts" who were hoodwinked into believing those diaries to be genuine. Of course those "experts" were proven to be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John G

By the way, you made a grammatical error by using an apostrophe after the word "posterior" An apostrophe should not be used to indicate a plural, only possession or a missing word.

Been listening to Caz I see. I was using my mobile phone to compose the post in question, and that's the way it inserted posteriors into the text. It doesn't alter the fact that you're talking out of your backside if you believe that the Maybrick Diary shows any merit where literary competence is concerned.

By the way, you never answered my question regarding Doctor Canter. Wasn't his comments regarding the Diary, based on his expertise as a profiler, as opposed to a literary commentator?

Indeed it does, Caz. Ryan's book also contains every other salient Maybrickian 'fact' needed to compose the manuscript. Bunny, Hopper, sickly kids, it's all there. Every fact, that is, but one.

But this shouldn't be too surprising, because Mike Barrett mentioned Ryan as a source for the Diary.

Hi rj,

Sorry for the belated response. Could you refresh my memory and source this mention? When exactly did Mike mention Bernard Ryan's book and under what circumstances? It must have gone whizzing past my slow, weary old brain.

Quote:

"The couple's busy social life continued. James continued to spend frequent evenings 'at the club' and to travel often to London for a day or two 'on business'. --Bernard Ryan.

Do you think Anne could have read that passage, was delighted at the reference to Jim spending "frequent evenings at the club" and composed the clumsy line "Frequented my club"?

It's really that simple.

If only, rj. If only. Didn't Ryan himself fail to recognise his own book as a likely source for the diary? And wasn't Anne far too sensible and competent to have written the nonsensical 'frequented my club' with a straight face? It smacks to me of someone wanting "Sir Jim" to sound comical, ridiculous and pretentious, to imagine that one could 'frequent' one's club as a one off instance rather than a regular event, like a faux posh way to say 'visit'. It's almost Pooteresque, in its jumped up late Victorian clerkishness.

Love,

Caz
X

__________________"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov